2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[wuzak]

You'll have the same 8th gear in Monaco as you would in Monza, so on most straights these cars will be constantly accelerating never quite making it to the equilibrium point. With DRS you'll just be accelerating a little bit more quickly.

I doubt if you will be able to engage this 8th gear at Monaco for any significant distance.

Which kind of demonstrates the point. There's no way they'll get to 8th in Monaco DRS or not. Plenty of other circuits where they'll only just be reaching it without DRS and with DRS they'll just get a little further round the rev band. Other circuits they could end up reaching the limiter (or hitting equilibrium due to fuel flow limits reducing the power) without DRS with DRS adding little beyond that.

Two things would surprise me - DRS being more effective and (if it is) the FIA not reacting mid weekend to correct for it.

DRS reduces drag.

Maximum speed without DRS occurs when the engine is at maximum power. Last year it was maybe 500rpm before the limiter. This year it will be 2-3000rpm, so the drag reduction should provide a significant boost to speed.

[wuzak]

The main point isn't the impact on DRS or gearing. The thing that many people did not want to see is the huge power these turbo engines can squeeze out of so much less fuel. That is an engineering marvel. A shame that we did not get to see the four cylinder engines. I'm very keen to compare what Porsche will wring out of their V4 with even 20% less fuel than the F1 engines are allowed. I bet if the original 4-cyl. furmula had been allowed to stand we would be nearer to 900 bhp top brunt.

You keep crapping on about the 4 cylinder formula.

I very much doubt that the in-line 4 would have produced any significant extra power - certainly not the ~100hp that you are talking about.

The Porsche is a V4, as you noted, so it doesn't fit with the previous F1 formula either. And Porsche chose V4 for chassis integration reasons - no other.

[Wayne DR]

MERCEDES AMG F1 ‏@MercedesAMGF1 8m
This is due to a greater amount of power and slightly less downforce. More power + less downforce = higher top speeds #FastFacts

Mercedes say they are up on power vs last year..

They probably be including ERS (as it has increased from 60kW to 120kW), around 25% of the total PU output.


Using the following relationship; Power = Torque x RPM x PI / 30000, and ignoring stoichiometric limitations (i.e. just applying the maximum allowable fuel flow). Peak power would be delivered at the RPM where peak fuel flow occurs (i.e. 11,000 RPM)

Assumptions: Peak torque will be at 7,000 RPM (based on this being the lowest RPM that the engine can safely operate at), energy from fuel is 48MJ/kg and overall engine efficiency is 35%

Peak Power without ERS at 11,000 RPM: 465 kW (620 hp)
Torque at 7,000RPM, based on peak power: 145 N.m

Peak Power with ERS at 11,000 RPM: 585 kW (780 hp)
Torque at 7,000RPM, based on peak power: 200 N.m

Average power from 7,000 to 13,000RPM would be 535kW (715 hp)


Comparing this to the 2.4L V8s from last year:

Assumptions: KERS is 60kW (as per the FIA regs), overall engine efficiency is around 33% and volumetric efficiency peaks at around 105% at 14,500 RPM, and drops off slightly in the rev ranges above and below this.

Peak Power without KERS at 18,000 RPM: ~545kW (725 hp)
Peak torque is at 14,500RPM: ~100 N.m

Peak Power with KERS at 18,000 RPM: ~605 kW (805 hp)
KERS lowers the peak torque to around 13,000RPM: ~114 N.m

Average power from 11,000 to 18,000RPM would be 508kW (675 hp)

So the average is slightly higher, but the peak would be slightly lower.
NOTE: These calculations are extremely rough (like +/-5% to 15%), so please don't bust my chops about their accuracy. I did the calcs to get a feel as to where the numbers lie.
The interesting numbers are the torque figures...

[chip engineer]

Time for some fun?

I think it would be cool to see what every ones predictions are for the 2014 engines HP (engine HP /combine HP) attach in their signature.

Were about to find out in the very near future.

My prediction:
610 hp ICE alone
770 hp with MGU-K

This is mostly based on the Cosworth simulations and assuming a little improvement in thermal efficiency.
I made a simple model (includes fuel flow and polynomial fit efficiency) to fit the Cosworth simulation assuming 45.24 MJ/kg fuel energy density and 35.7% efficiency at 12000 rpm (Honda RA168E turbo V6 achieved 32.5% at 12000 rpm). 36.2% would be needed to reach my prediction.
I'm planning to use this engine model in a simple car simulator as well.

[ringo]

Chip engineer is in the right ballpark. Why do we keep running over this again? lol
We'd all like the cars to be more powerful, but they just aren't with the ICE alone.
And even ICE plus MGUK. were at around 780 thereabout.

The cars don't look as zippy to me. They have the electric torque for 33s and the gearing and the low downforce body and pirelli tyres. The truth about the top speeds is somewhere in the middle of that.

[wuzak]

Chip engineer is in the right ballpark. Why do we keep running over this again? lol
We'd all like the cars to be more powerful, but they just aren't with the ICE alone.
And even ICE plus MGUK. were at around 780 thereabout.

The cars don't look as zippy to me. They have the electric torque for 33s and the gearing and the low downforce body and pirelli tyres. The truth about the top speeds is somewhere in the middle of that.

Yes, the top speeds are mainly due to lower drag.

But the power units do have more power than over a significant portion of the operating range.

Let's also put to bed this idea of 33s of "electric torque".

The cars are only allowed to recover 2MJ per lap. And at most tracks they won't even be able to do that.

[ringo]

Yes the average power is very significant.

[Maxion]

The cars don't look as zippy to me. They have the electric torque for 33s and the gearing and the low downforce body and pirelli tyres. The truth about the top speeds is somewhere in the middle of that.

They're not limited to 33s. They're limited to 120KW from the MGU-K and 2MJ from the ES. This year, since they don't have a KERS button, the MGU-K will apply it's power as part of the engine mapping. The teams will probably not use it as a "turbo boost" but rather use the MGU-K to improve acceleration and to make the PUs' torque curve flatter.

[Abarth]

.....You are not going to have even firing intervals with a V6 60° with shared crankshaft Pins (which is what I expect for a racing engine). .....
60-180-60-180-60-180 (eg. 1-6-2-4-3-5) would be the interval. ....... .

60 deg ??

I was using the V6 60deg sheet, sorry for the confusion.

Anyway, I think that sound differences hardly come form different firing orders per se, but from different firing intervals and/or different arrangements (turbine with one and two inlets).

[Abarth]

[...]The Porsche is a V4, as you noted, so it doesn't fit with the previous F1 formula either. And Porsche chose V4 for chassis integration reasons - no other.

And weight. This is from an article in the actual Autosprint, where there is an interview with Alex Hitzinger.
Basically he says the the heavier the energy recuperation systems are, the more they can save fuel. And therefore, they had to choose an ICE design as light as possible. They use a 2 L ICE, btw.

[Tommy Cookers]

...... I bet if the original 4-cyl. furmula had been allowed to stand we would be nearer to 900 bhp top brunt.

could you explain this ?
if you believe the inline 4 is clearly better in this fuel-limited formula than the V 6 ......
presumably a 3 cylinder engine is better than the 4, a twin better than a 3, and a single cylinder the best of all ?

[Abarth]

...... I bet if the original 4-cyl. furmula had been allowed to stand we would be nearer to 900 bhp top brunt.

could you explain this ?
if you believe the inline 4 is clearly better in this fuel-limited formula than the V 6 ......
presumably a 3 cylinder engine is better than the 4, a twin better than a 3, and a single cylinder the best of all ?

Going from around 40% efficiency in the self sustained mode (around 700 hp) to 47.5% for 825 hp or so?
Oy.....

[Lazy]

Chip engineer is in the right ballpark. Why do we keep running over this again? lol
We'd all like the cars to be more powerful, but they just aren't with the ICE alone.
And even ICE plus MGUK. were at around 780 thereabout.

The cars don't look as zippy to me. They have the electric torque for 33s and the gearing and the low downforce body and pirelli tyres. The truth about the top speeds is somewhere in the middle of that.

Yes, the top speeds are mainly due to lower drag.

But the power units do have more power than over a significant portion of the operating range.

Let's also put to bed this idea of 33s of "electric torque".

The cars are only allowed to recover 2MJ per lap. And at most tracks they won't even be able to do that.

I'm not sure that's right tbh, on the heavy braking circuits there will be enough from the mguk and on the low braking circuits there will be fast corners etc with part throttle where there will be excess from the mguh to make up the difference.

The 33secs is misleading as well because that is 33secs of max power ie 160bhp but in reality they will never be able to use it like that. Anytime they will need max power the mguh will be providing ~120bhp whic is 3/4 of the max. So, in reality, they will have 4 times 33secs of ES power, minus a little for filling in the torque gaps, which they won't have time to use.

In fact they will have max power whenever they want it and the question will be how best to use the excess ES energy to save fuel. Indeed I heard reports yesterday that Merc and Mac were experimenting with all electric in the pitlane to save fuel.

[WhiteBlue]

The main point isn't the impact on DRS or gearing. The thing that many people did not want to see is the huge power these turbo engines can squeeze out of so much less fuel. That is an engineering marvel. A shame that we did not get to see the four cylinder engines. I'm very keen to compare what Porsche will wring out of their V4 with even 20% less fuel than the F1 engines are allowed. I bet if the original 4-cyl. furmula had been allowed to stand we would be nearer to 900 bhp top brunt.

You keep crapping on about the 4 cylinder formula.

I very much doubt that the in-line 4 would have produced any significant extra power - certainly not the ~100hp that you are talking about.

The Porsche is a V4, as you noted, so it doesn't fit with the previous F1 formula either. And Porsche chose V4 for chassis integration reasons - no other.

I'm not talking about 100 hp extra because the F1 PUs will have more than 800 hp, that is obvious to see already. The difference between a V4 and an I4 is not in friction and power but in packaging. Hence the Porsche V4 will be a pretty good indication what the I4 could have done. I'm confident that the engine will have a higher BTE by several %. As I have already pointed out we can wait and see. In the fullness of time it will all be revealed.

[Abarth]

I'm not talking about 100 hp extra because the F1 PUs will have more than 800 hp, that is obvious to see already. [...]

For you it might be ovious, for me it's not. And I do not believe that 800 hp are reached, but maybe you have some sources or calculations?

[...]Hence the Porsche V4 will be a pretty good indication what the I4 could have done. I'm confident that the engine will have a higher BTE by several %. As I have already pointed out we can wait and see. In the fullness of time it will all be revealed.

Several % ? At this level, 2% in self sustained mode are around 35 hp. And I do not believe that the difference of 2 cylinders will make 2%, but you may have some evidence?

Anyway, this is all theoretical. What a manufacturer will gain in knowledge about these PU's will not change whether it's a 4 or 6 cylinder, the tasks are pretty much the same. It's not the absolute level which counts here.